Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
Edit: Indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charg...
Has he been arrested for skipping bail on a UK court warrant? Yes.
Has he been arrested on a US indictment for extradition? Also yes.
These are two separate arrests. It just happens that one was once he was already at a police station. http://news.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest-of-julian-assan...
Edit: apparently the Swedish extradition is spinning up as well.
Does this signify something meaningful, such as a change of which legal basis the arrest is under, and thus a change to the rights he has?
(a) a person—
(i) has been arrested for an offence; and
(ii) is at a police station in consequence of that arrest; and
(b) it appears to a constable that, if he were released from that arrest, he would be liable to arrest for some other offence,
he shall be arrested for that other offence.
Snowden: The weakness of the US charge against Assange is shocking. The allegation he tried (and failed?) to help crack a password during their world-famous reporting has been public for nearly a decade: it is the count Obama's DOJ refused to charge, saying it endangered journalism.
It's not at all obvious which faction initiated the extradition request, or for what purpose.
It's possible this is to pressure Assange to provide evidence in the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election.
It's also possible this is an attempt to sequester him to prevent disclosure of information about those events.
A third possibility is that this is an attack on the press.
Even without a conviction, it will have a chilling effect on journalists publishing classified information, which is not currently a crime.
With a conviction, it will establish a dark new precedent that criminalizes much of the most consequential reporting.
And that would not be irony, it would be tragedy.
One of the few consistencies I've seen in my lifetime across all major US Government agencies is that they seem to hold grudges forever. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, DOJ, IRS or SEC. Assange, out there, is a persistent waving defiance of their perceived power and reach (and worse, right in the US sphere of influence).
The anecdote he shared was a fugitive fled to Saudi Arabia. Over a decade and a half, the fugitive grew a small business empire and was well-connected. In tandem with allies in Saudi Arabia, the FBI arranged a lavish party on a yacht to which their target was invited. The yacht sailed out to international waters and FBI agents apprehended him and put him on a Navy cruiser out at sea.
The FBI often refers cases with single digit millions in losses to state and local, because the SAs are busy with bigger cases.
He likely made the situation worse by hiding out in the embassy---he became a symbol of something untouchable by American power, and this administration cares more about that sort of perception than the previous one.
Regardless of which side is in power.
Sweden has pretty much zero credibility when it comes to extraditions requested by the US: https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
The original comment said "administration", not "government". The current administration IS largely a monolith, given that nearly every high-level cabinet appointee has either been unqualified for the role or are ideologues who appear to have been hired on the basis of their loyalty to the Pres.
- Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser
- Scott Pruit as head of the EPA
- Ben Carson as Sec of Housing
- Rex Tiller as Sec of State
- Herman Cain and Stephen Moore on the board of the Fed
The list goes on an on.
Other factions within the US government are attempting to hold the executive branch in check, and it's possible that one of these factions requested the arrest and extradition.
At this point we do not know.
No one outside of the administration has the authority to request extradition.
That's an argument against the desirability of the charge because of knock on effects (or, rather, because of some other actors past perception of such effects), not an argument supporting the claim that the charge is weak. In fact, were it weak, it would pose little danger even if it was the kind of charge that, considerations of strength aside, would pose danger.
No, prosecutorial decisions are not, even in theory, made based solely on the strength of cases; while that is a factor, evaluation of importance (including cost/benefit considerationa), which are ultimately policy decisions which different decision-makers (and even the same decision-maker at a different time, particularly if facts pertinent to the prioritization but not the strength the of the case change) are likely to see differently even with the same view of strength of the case, are also a factor.
Plus, available evidence and relevant case law can change over time; even if the case was weak during the previous Administration the same case might not be weak now.
> Surely if a previous DOJ refused to prosecute the case it is 'weak' in some sense
That's not a matter of the case being weak, that's a matter of policy on which actors with different policy preferences will differ even with perfect information and judgement regarding application of those preferences.
> Or perhaps because there is prima facie evidence of a crime but First Amendment arguments could potentially prevent the government from securing a conviction.
That would be weakness, but no one has made a coherent First Amendment argument that would bar prosecution for conspiracy to break into a government computer system manifest in an offer to help break a password and actual attempts at that. A lot of emotional appeals lacking a specific argument have been made in that direction, but that's not the same thing.
Though it is also the narrative on russia propaganda sites https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201806271065837436-comey-as...
TheHill is solid right (or maybe center-right if one views the neoliberal faction of the Democratic Party as center-left instead of center-right.) It's not “left-center” in any case.
The author isn't left-center biased. It's the opposite.
>John F. Solomon is an American media executive and columnist. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill. He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times. He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals
Also international left is still on his side defending him, but thd US left want to see him hung out to dry. Interesting split.
The so-called "New Democrats" (think Clinton, Biden, Kamala Harris) are surely who you are referring to; they want him crucified. The "progressive" wing of the left (think Ralph Nader) do NOT fit that description. IMHO as a lifelong Southern California resident in Los Angeles, the progressive left has more support among common people, but the Clinton Democrats have more support from the donor class. Hence, the media narrative of the American left is dominated by the corporatist dems.
By and large, people I spoke to during 2016 were not fans of Hillary Clinton, but had resigned to the fact the she would be the candidate by virtue of her wealthy donors.
Identity politics is still a big thing on the left, so the fact that Bernie Sanders, despite being an "old white man", has so much support from the common people speaks volumes about the shift away from the Clinton-era centrism
But to the extent they're credibly running for office, they're likely tending towards left-flavored authoritarian because carrying the banner for policies that will benefit some entrenched interests is how elections are won in the US.
You could look at it through the lens of positive vs. negative rights. The far left believes in positive rights (eg. the right to health care, the right to education) which require action by another party. If no party is willing to provide those services, the only way to guarantee that right is to force someone. Libertarians believe in negative rights (eg. freedom from violence, freedom from compulsion, freedom from taxation), which just require inaction. If you simply get rid of the institution, you assure the rights that libertarians care about - at least until some other institution crops up that seeks to infringe upon them. (Many libertarians make exceptions to their general anti-institutional bent to assure that no other institution crops up. For example, most support the government's monopoly on physical force simply to prevent some warlord from generating a local monopoly on physical force and using it to take away the freedoms from compulsion or theft, as long as that's the only purpose that it's used for.)
I'm not aware of any "far-left" party or politician in the US or Europe who says it's justified to compel anyone to work.
Taxing income or redistributing wealth does not compel anyone to work.
Indeed, it's right-libertarian policies that tend to transfer wealth from those at the bottom of the pyramid who work to those at the top of the pyramid who do not work.
It does compel, as you are essentially taking wealth away from people, therefore they will have work more to compensate.
Historical experience suggests the opposite.
My take with GP is the question of where would the various left wing anarchists fit in his explanation. Also, I would argue that the classical critique against private property that right libertarians reivindicate is that the state is actually equivalent to the warlord on the example and is inevitable of the concept of private property.
Unfortunately, 'we all' does not seem to include Mr. Assange.
Isn't he facing 10 years in UK for fleeing on bail?
Does US extradite him, trial him, (jail him?) and then ship him off to the UK to serve his time there?
IIRC it's up to 12 months for basically contempt of court / failing to surrender.